live from london. this is bbc news. iran's supreme leader breaks his silence, saying the us gained nothing from striking his country's nuclear sites and the attack was simply 'showmanship' from president trump. the us defence secretary insists the military operation was a historic success. decimating. choose your word. obliterating. destroying iran's nuclear capabilities. i'm mark lowen live in tel aviv. we'll have more on iran and on gaza too, where another 56 have been killed there, according to rescuers. the uk government appears set to make some concessions on its welfare bill after more than 120 labour mps signalled they were ready to rebel. we'll speak to two of them.

and work has started on a controversial project to create human dna from scratch. supporters say it could help cure countless diseases. critics argue it could open the door to genetically-enhanced humans. hello and welcome to the programme. the us defence secretary, pete hegseth, has described america's military strike's against iran's nuclear programme as 'historically successful'. speaking at a news conference in washington, he mounted a robust and occasionally angry defence of the mission. he also attacked sections of the media for, in his words, 'fawning' over early intelligence report on the strikes and suggesting they showed the us attacks had limited impact. it comes after iran's supreme leader appeared on state tv, claiming victory over israel, and saying the us attacks 'failed to achieve

anything significant'. more on that shortly. first, here's some of what pete hegseth had to say. president trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history and it was a resounding success resulting in a ceasefire agreement and the end of the 12 day war. there has been a lot of discussion about what happened and what didn't happen. step back for a second. because of decisive military action, president trump created the conditions to end the war. decimating, choose your word, obliterating, destroying, iran's nuclear capabilities. iran's supreme leader made his first appearance on state tv since the 12 day war. he said, donald trump had 'exaggerated' the impact of america's strikes on their nuclear facilities. translation: the president of the united states

exaggerated events in unusual ways and it turns out he needed this exaggeration. anyone who has heard these words has understood there is another truth behind them. the us has failed to take action and has not achieved their intended objective. let's speak to mark lowen, who's in tel aviv. confirmation i suppose firstly the supreme leader is still alive after this 12 day wall but very strident in terms of what he was saying. an opposite view and portrayal of the impact of the american strikes that are presented from israel and the us as you would expect. very defiant for an internal audience i'm sure. but what iranians really buy it, that is the question? there is dissent at the top of the iranian

regime. the nuclear programme that has been built over the last 30 years has cost iran hundreds of billions of dollars in terms of sanctions and now there has been this 12 day wall. so will there be an attempt at some kind of dissent within the iranian regime? yet there are still doubts over the extent of the damage to iran's nuclear programme beyond its nuclear facility especially given the fact there are rumours that iran has squirrelled away some amounts of highly enriched uranium. there are now reports the country will perhaps stop cooperating with the un nuclear watchdog. so given all of that, what room is there still for a return to the negotiating table. donald trump said yesterday they could be talks next week between the us and iran but given the amount of mistrust and given the doubts there are still about where iran's nuclear programme goes from there, is their trust at

all and is there any room at all for a return to diplomacy? thank you very much for now. we'll have more from mark lowen later this half hour on the developments in gaza. back to the us defence secretary - he was speaking alongside the chairman of the us, joint chiefs of staff, general dan caine. he said he wasn't going to mark his own homework, but the massive bombs had hit their targets and their explosion had been seen. take a listen. the weapons functioned as designed and they exploded and we know this through other means that we have that were visibly, we were able to see them. we know that the trailing jets saw the first weapons function and the pilots stated, this was the brightest explosion that i've ever seen. it literally looks like daylight.

let's speak to our north america correspondent, nomia iqbal. it's worth staying right at the start that it was another extraordinary rant aimed at the media, simply proposing sober questions and i suppose we should not normalise that but away from that in terms of the content of what we heard from the chair of the joint chiefs and from the defence secretary, summarise what the thrust of what they were saying was. we certainly got more details about the attack from general kane. he showed videos in which you could see that the entrance to the sites had been destroyed. that was something we had not seen before. but that crucial question of iran's nuclear capabilities and how far had they been set back, has the us done irreparable damage? that was not answered at all. general kane focused very much on the logistics and the military story, telling us what

happened including evacuating americans from the base in qatar which experienced retaliatory strikes from iran. pete hegseth very much focused his anger on the press. i think it was pretty insulting. he scaled often at reporters, accused them of fawning over this leaked intelligence report which came from his own agency by the way. he said it was low confidence. it was staggering in the sense that reporters are just doing their job and simply asking that question which everyone wants answered, how far has iran's nuclear sites been set back, but we didn't get an answer to that at all. the way the administration seems to be looking at it by questioning the narrative the press is accused of not being patriotic enough, not being supportive of american

soldiers. but that is not the case at all. if it turns out iran's nuclear sites have not been set back or haven't been destroyed to the extent the americans want it, the other question is will the us have to go back in? will the us get dragged further into this conflict which is of course that the very thing president trump is constantly says he doesn't want. the supreme leader of iran addressed that, if there were further strikes. in terms of the other comments about donald trump, he said exaggerating the damage done and showmanship. all of that is likely to need of the president. it will. the ayatollah also said ultimately this is about iran's surrendering and regime change in donald trump has denied that, although he put up this post saying something about regime change and it caused confusion. but there is still a

plan for the us to have talks with iran at some point next week. we don't know exactly when. or even way. the us middle east envoy who goes to try and resolve these conflicts is on standby to fly anywhere he needs to fly to and the us doesn't want oman to be involved, they have usually been the go-between. the us says it wants to talk to the iranian regime directly. thank you very much for that. plenty more on that story coming up on today's programme. let's turn to the politics story in the uk. downing street is in talks with labour mps, as it tries to head off a growing rebellion over its welfare reforms. more than 120 labour backbenchers have signed an amendment, calling for the proposals to be scrapped. the government has confirmed

a vote on its planned changes will go ahead next tuesday, despite the ongoing row. jack fenwick reports from westminster. the prime minister had hoped to spend the day discussing his new trade strategy. instead, the epic row about his plans to cut disability benefits rumbles on. overnight, the list of labour rebels who want his welfare reforms to be scrapped grew again. 162 mps have now signed the amendment, 126 of them labour. but after days of ministers saying they would hold firm, look at how the tone at the top of government has changed. yesterday the prime minister was not budging. are there plenty of people and noises off? yes of course, there always are. there always have been, there always will be. but the important thing is to focus on the change we want to bring about. those comments angered backbench mps even further. talking about his mps, his colleagues as "noises off" is partly why he's in the problem he's in.

and this morning downing street has confirmed it is in talks with the rebels about possible changes to the welfare policies. all colleagues want to get this right and so do i. we want to see reform implemented but labour values of fairness. that conversation will continue in the coming days so we can begin making change together on tuesday. with 126 of his own mps all openly undermining his authority, his government is incapable of making even the smallest changes to bring down the cost of our ever expanding welfare bill. a number ten source told the bbc that delivering fundamental change isn't easy, that the welfare system is broken and it's fair and responsible to fix it. it's looking increasingly likely that concessions will be made before tuesday's crucial vote. it's not yet clear what number ten will offer to try and stave off this rebellion. one potential option could be to change the new eligibility

for people receiving the personal independence payments. what clearly is the case is that the negotiations this afternoon are far from over. one labour rebel told me that number ten's opening gambit had been too vague and that a compromise was far from being reached yet. that frustration from the rebels was evident in parliament this morning. we have spoken to our constituents and organisations representing disabled people who reject the bill because it would cause harm to disabled people and their voices have not been heard. when they say cut back, we say no! those unhappy with the cuts don't simply what a tweak to the plans. they say too many people will be pushed into poverty and want to see wholesale change. the problem now for the government is if there are any big concessions, it would likely blow a huge hole in the chancellor's wider spending plans.

let's speak to labout mp rachel maskell joining me now are two labour rebels - rachael maskell and cat eccles. it will cause psychological harm. i have people tell me already these discussions have set back the mental health and tragically for some they just don't think they have got the mental resilience to get through this. we know disabled people would work if they could work but many people can't. we need to look after them. they are labour values, that is why our in parliament. it's really imported mps stand up for those values and for the constituencies. the same question to you? i would echo everything rachel has just

said. i've heard similar tragic stories from my constituents but equally there is a whole load of people who do work on disabled people who are in work thanks to their personal independence payments. ministers and secretary of state have failed to provide me with any reassurance of what will happen to those people if they can't meet the new four point criteria because a lot of them don't meet that criteria currently and if they don't get their payments they may not be able to stay in work. they might not be able to pay their bills. so i can't see how we are helping make things work and other people might be pushed out. let me tell you what the prime minister said today, he talked about doing this with labour values. he's also talked in the last few days about noises off, that is how we has described some of the mps that have been talking about this. when you hear all

of that, what do you think? i think it's insulting to our values. it might be a moral case that we need to find a saving but there are other ways things could be found which don't involve taking money off people before getting support in place for them. rachel, do you get the sense that backbenchers sense an element of weakness within sir keir starmer, bruised by those local elections, bruised by recent polling, even talks if he lost this vote whether it's the beginning of the end for him, is that partly what is behind backbenchers being determined to see this through? no. we are deeply concerned for our constituents and that is why we

are speaking up and that is why we are very determined. we cannot see, it's a brutal bill and we cannot see how they can be concessions to the bill. close one, putting up the standard rate of universal credit, we will support. the rest of the bill needs to be ditched. encourage the government to withdraw this legislation and next tuesday let's have a debate about the real needs and support that disabled people need. but i think what is most apparent in this whole debate, we represent our constituents and it's a real insult to disabled people to say that they noises off. we care for these precious lives and that is why we will vote on this bill. you will know what the government has said on this, the need to cut the welfare bill which is spiralling. they are saying that billions of pounds will be put into helping people back into work. we know that is the government position but we know

now that there are talks going on and indications that they will be concessions. our concessions enough or do you reflect what rachel is just said, there are actually the best course of action is to simply withdraw their son do more work with disabled groups to actually find a way of making the reforms that work for government and work for those groups as well. absolutely. we need to be designing a system that is radical and works for disabled people. that is what my constituents are telling me and what we have heard from people all over the country. it has never worked for them and the whole process is demeaning and dehumanising and undignified. we need to be looking at the process and making sure it works for people. on a final point, i am baffled why we are combining the conversation about disabled people who need extra support and healthy abled bodied people who are economically inactive. these are different groups of people

that do not belong in the same conversation. this bill is deeply flawed and i think we need to pause it and look at it again. rachel, do you think the penny has dropped in downing street? i sincerely hope it has. i feel that if government continues to be obsolescent and push forward it's not the vote in parliament they should be concerned about, it will be the next vote in the country. thank you both for your time. we of course will follow this over the next crucial few days and we will speak

let's go back to mark lohan, we

were talking earlier about iran and we have received reports of many people killed today and in the west bank in clashes between settlers and palestinians. bring us up to date with the latest of those elements. the ceasefire with iran might be holding but the unrest and violence continues in both parts of the palestinian territories, in the occupied west bank three palestinians were shot dead by israeli settlers who attacked a village near a mall. our correspondence has been there. i understand you have now moved to another part of the west bank where there has also been unrest. talk us through both incidents. there has been sporadic violence across the west bank in recent weeks and even months. obviously not as highlighted or as damaging as what's going on in gaza but nonetheless ever since that war in gaza we had been increasing

violence year in the occupied west bank. i am outside the village and you have a palestinian village in the near background and jewish settlement in the far background and they have been clashes between settlers and from various jewish outposts coming down and setting fire to cars and buildings in these villages. in the village we have just come from three young men were shot and killed last night after clashes between settlers who had come down with molotov cocktails and tried to set fire to cars and houses. at some point. liz were backed up by the idf, the israeli army, they fired live rounds towards the village and three young men were killed. the israeli army says they did that after receiving stones and gunfire from within the village. villagers deny that they fired. they said they did defend the houses with stones and whatever they had to hand after they were set alight by settlers.

earlier in the week in the same village a 13-year-old boy was also killed, shot reportedly by an israeli soldier. both incidents are being investigated by the idea. but it's an example of the increasing tensions and violence in the occupied west bank. more than 900 people have been killed here in israeli military activity since the start of the gaza war. 35 israelis have also been killed in violence here in the west bank. settlers are feeling increasingly emboldened. only last month the israeli government approved the building of 22 new settlements and those settlements are of course regarded as illegal under international law because they are being built on occupied palestinian land but israeli government ministers often support the actions of settlers and support the goal of settlers which is to annex the palestinian west bank.

thank you very much. let's move to gaza because they had mass controlled civil defence agency says 56 people have been killed since yesterday. among them four of them were waiting to collect aid, nine of the victims within a school in gaza city hosting those displaced by the conflict. israel is yet to comment. let's speak to ... ghada al-haddad, media and communications officer for oxfam. she's in deit al-balah in gaza. how would you describe the situation in gaza right now? right now gaza is defined by survival. just a few hours ago an israeli air strike hit a few kilometres from where i am right now taking the lives of 17 people all at once and

leaving others injured. we are living under unimaginable conditions. many people in gaza are without homes, without clean water, without electricity and without access to food. families are crowded in shelters or in makeshift camps with no privacy and no sanitation and no safety stop the threat of israeli air on bombing is constant. the humanitarian aid is either militarised or blocked from going into the gaza strip. what is happening in gaza right now, it is a manufactured humanitarian catastrophe. people are starving, people are approaching us at oxfam asking for food, hospitals are overrun with injuries or non-functional. children are

starving. children are not able to go to school. everyone in gaza is just trying to stay alive. meanwhile the israeli authorities say they are blocking any entry of aid for another two days to try to stop hamas from looting aid which is what they accuse them of doing. are you saying another aid blockade now by israel? since the beginning of the war in gaza israel has used food as a weapon of war. israel has blocked the food into the gaza strip. it blocked the food aid into the gaza strip. it has used starvation as a policy and the tactic of war in the gaza strip. that is why people are starving. most of the people in

the gaza strip according to reports face acute malnutrition due to the lack of food supply and the gaza strip and there is no agriculture and no sufficient land because they have been bombed during israeli air strikes. so palestinians are not allowed to get food aid from abroad and they are not allowed to produce their own food. we at oxfam have hundreds of aid trucks but they are stuck in our houses in jordan and cairo. we are not able to bring them here to gaza. it's not only the case for oxfam, it is the case for many un agencies. this is a breach of

international humanitarian law. i am going to have to jump in because we are running out of time but thank you very much. matthew, back to you in london. more from mark in the region in the next little while. here on the programme coming up i will be in the newsroom assessing what we've heard from the us defence secretary and we will also get the latest from bbc persian after iran's supreme leader made that first tv appearance so we will have analysis on both of those